UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard/Archive 25

This is an archive of past UESPWiki:Administrator Noticeboard discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Discontinuing creation limits

I belatedly realized that page creation limits originally proposed to be discontinued on February 29th were still in place. I've now gone ahead and lifted the limits. I'd expect that we'll probably start to get the usual assortment of unnecessarily-created pages that need to be proposed for deletion. If the problems seem unusually numerous, we can of course discuss whether other measures are needed. --Nephele^Talk 00:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it another 6-month deal? Page creation is one of the few things we have under control - and we're alive because of that. --Krusty 04:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see what happens over the next week or so first. Having to put some pages up for deletion is no more work than having to respond to new page requests, and it has the additional bonus that more editors can help out with tasks such as creating redirects. --Nephele^Talk 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I just asked this on RH's page, but since he didn't know of anywhere on the site, maybe one of you might. Is there somewhere on the site which shows a list of the most recently created articles? It's not really important, I'm mostly just curious about it. ABCface^◥ 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried Special:Newpages? Is that what you're looking for? eshe^talk 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)`

Yes, thank you! And thanks to ES, too :) ABCface^◥ 19:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks, Eshe. I thought there should be one somewhere, but I went looking for it under Logs and didn't think to check Special Pages like I should have. – Robin Hood↝talk 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-instituted the page creation limits in the main namespace. The only pages created in the main namespace since March 17th have been spam pages that needed to be speedy-deleted. Furthermore, I don't think we want to allow even most typical editors to create main namespace pages, since such pages have historically always been pages that actually belonged in a game namespace but were created by an editor who wasn't familiar with our namespace system. So I think it's best overall if we limit main namespace page creation to admins/patrollers/etc. --Nephele^Talk 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for a New User Group

During the patroller nomination for Helenaannevalentine I noticed that while she's a fine editor, one that doesn't need to have her edits checked by a patroller, she doesn't actually patrol much as was denied due to this. Due to the backlog with unpatrolled edits, several editors have been put forward for patroller rights on the grounds that we wouldn't have to patrol their edits if they were made a patroller. I think it would be easier to simply create a new user group which puts its members on autopatrol, saving everyone else the hassle. The only requirement for joining the group is that an administrator believes their edits don't require any oversight, and that it would be a waste of time having to manually patrol their edits. Likewise, it can be taken away if an administrator doesn't believe their edits don't require a second look.

While I don't understand the technicalities of creating a group, I'm sure this can be done. While I don't think this group will have a particularly large number of members as a few of those who would of been part of this group went on to be patrollers, I still think it would do the site some good. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this. Also put Alphabetface and Elliot into this group. ?• JA^Talk 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the idea, and I can handle the technical side of things easily enough. If we're collecting names, I'd also suggest PLRDLF.

However, I'd like to suggest that perhaps patrollers should be the ones responsible for deciding who belongs in the group, rather than administrators -- since patrollers are the ones affected if someone is added to the group (it doesn't even have any affect on the editor who is added to the group). Perhaps any patroller can nominate someone to join the group; as long as another patroller seconds the nomination, it can take effect immediately (and any admin would be able to do the promotion). (Where "patroller" implicitly includes administrators, since admins all have patroller rights). --Nephele^Talk 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's not that much more difficult, while allowing more people into the pool to help make decisions here. If we are collecting names, let me add Manic and Helenaanevalentine to my list of candidates to start this group off. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. It may be premature, but The Silencer is also on my list of up-and-coming users that could go into this user group. ?• JA^Talk 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We should definitely keep the number of users on this low. As of now, the only users that would truly make sense are myself, Manic, and PLRDLF. The other ones I would hesitate with; however, since I am not a patroller, it won't matter much. elliot (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Since we're putting forth names, I agree with most of the above suggestions, and would like to add Kimi the Elf and Aliana to the list. (Note: Aliana tends to be active in spurts, but she's been around the wiki for years and I completely trust her edits at this point.) Also, I think at this point, Alphabetface should just plain run for Patroller and skip the new group altogether.

As a side note to this discussion, our level of unpatrolled edits has slowly been creeping down, though all it would take to start going the other direction very fast would be for one of the top five Patrollers to stop doing so. As of right now, we're sitting at a little under 1500 unpatrolled edits over the last 28 days. Looking at all the editors mentioned to this point, they have 1418 total edits between them in that same 28 days, 104 of which remain unpatrolled at this point. It goes without saying that not having to patrol those edits would make a huge difference. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I seriously think we should limit it to 5 or 6. And RH, until Kimi can provide reasonable edit summaries, I really do not think she belongs in this group. elliot (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I don’t think we should go down this path whatsoever. Basically, everybody makes factual mistakes in SR-namespace these days and, to be perfectly honest, not even administrators should be auto-patrolled. After playing Skyrim since November (every day), I feel knowledgeable about 10-15% of the game, and I definitely take comfort knowing that another editor looks/reads through my edits. So, what am I saying here? Well, I believe that handing out too many of these high-fashion auto-patroller-thingy’s is an open invitation to lower standards, simply because the editors in question will be aware that their edits will no longer be cross-checked by another editor. It is also an invitation to patrollers to easily ignore edits and instead jump straight to the latest addition to the Blood on the Ice talk page. Admitted, when somebody edits a page on my watch-list, I patrol the edit regardless of exclamation marks, editor and status, because that’s what I’m supposed to do. I think that this attempt to make life easy will end up making it harder – and I believe we need to halt this uprising ‘un-patrolled edits panic’ and focus on quality content. --Krusty 06:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The counter-point to that, though, is that by allowing the more trusted editors to be autopatrolled, Patrollers can focus on the edits that will be lower-quality/more dubious, on average, and thus bring the wiki's standards up. I don't know about anybody else, but right now, I spend far more of my time patrolling than actually playing, which means that I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like to be either. By cutting back on the patrolling burden, all of us will have more time to get more familiar with the game, or do more in-depth research in the CK, and therefore be able to answer more questions with the correct facts. In the end, I'd rather have reasonably trustworthy edits go unpatrolled than have edits of unknown quality go unpatrolled. I know the days the patrolling burden has been lighter, I've been able to give much better answers than I otherwise would have. Today, for example, if I couldn't find an answer in 5 minutes or so, I just gave up and moved on to the next issue. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I always read any edits in the Recent Changes that seem interesting, patrolled or not. This includes edits made by Patrollers and Admins. Usually, these pages that I check regardless are in my area of expertise. Because I am knowledgeable about those topics, and I check any edits made to them regardless, it really wouldn't affect how factually sound those articles are if the person who made the edit is in the Auto-Patrolled user group. ?• JA^Talk 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What if we accepted members freely into this group (I say "freely", but there would have to naturally be prerequisites that have to be met) without a size cap, but have the editors in the group go up for a Patroller nomination after a period of say... One or two months? That would help ease the burden of unpatrolled edits. The editors that we have an eye on can have their edits autopatrolled, but they have to keep an eye on the Recent Changes as well since they would have their names up for a nomination. That would keep the group small, since you have to be interested in eventually making larger, more responsible contributions to the site... They get autopatrolled, and in exchange they eventually have to help us patrol. A decision on what to do should they fail the nomination would have to be thought of, but I thought this could be an interesting little suggestion. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm simply going to say that I support this idea. There is nothing I can say that has not been said already. Hopefully the community will vote in favour of this. I also agree with the idea that only trusted editors should be eligible to ensure that (like Krusty says) it reduces problems rather than creates more. --Manic 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) If we really wanted to keep it small and trustworthy, we could do the same thing that we already do for patrollers, with a week of voting. One of the huge factors for becoming a patroller is the question "Do we trust their edits?" If we do and if they edit recently changed pages, then they tend to become patrollers. These people wouldn't have the exclamation points, nor would they have to monitor recent changes; however, we'd still be trusting them with their own content as much as we trust patrollers. The only difference in the nominations for these people would be the lack of the question "Do they patrol the recent changes?" --Velyanthe 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to jog people's memory in terms of those who we might want to add to the new group, assuming it goes ahead, here are the top 10 editors in the last 28 days excluding all edits that are autopatrolled. This is strictly based on the editing data and obviously shouldn't be taken as any kind of endorsement, just a list of names to make sure we're not forgetting anyone obvious.

Alphabetface (User Patroller)
CapnZapp
DextroWombat
Elliot (User Patroller)
Helenaannevalentine (User Patroller)
Kertaw48
Kimi the Elf (User Patroller)
SkoomaManiac (User Patroller)
The Silencer
ThuumofReason

– Robin Hood↝talk 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only support myself and Helena (considering Alphabetface will be a patroller) out of that list. I understand Krusty's concerns (despite his digression and comments on "stopping the uprising"), which is why a few members should only be included. My edits are typically en masse, which is annoying for some patrollers, and Helena's edit quality is fine, as well as PLRDLF.

Also, we should definitely avoid turning this into a voting process. This should be a decision made by the patrollers, with members being included without any opposition from a patroller. This doesn't ne to be overcomplicated. elliot (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Elliot mentioned it, if we were to exclude Alphabetface, PLRDLF would actually have been next on the list, if only by a few edits. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that what is being asked for is to have a group of 'trusted users', those users who have proved to be responsible over a period of time. That is, to separate them from the ordinary members group, and add an extra layer to the heirarchy of the site. This wouldn't stop their edits from being checked, occassionaly a patroller could scan their edits while taking a rest from reverting vandalism. As a watcher of recent changes I look at almost all that appear and wouldn't be afriad of changing anyones work. I don't think I've been here long enough to prove myself though. The Silencer 18:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not the intent, it's merely intended to create less work for patrollers. With PLRDLF, as an example, not many people can patrol the majority of his edits as he's one of the few people here with a grand understanding of Daggerfall. There are a few editors who have none of the necessary permissions to not currently be auto-patrolled, despite their edits requiring no large amount of oversight. There are better ways to spend our time than just patrolling someones edits on sight. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, can we stop this idiocy? --Krusty 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's idiocy for being banned from the UESPWiki channel on IRC for not voting. Are you kidding me? ~ Dwarfmp 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) Forgive me if it is obvious and forgive me if this is some outside discussion that I am referring to that I shouldn't know about, but Krusy's latest comment has lost me. What exactly is the "idiocy" being mentioned? I see a stack of paragraphs containing some pretty valid thoughts on the subject. I am just curious so that I can keep following properly how the conversation is progressing. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 00:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

While I wouldn't consider this idea "idiocy", I'd just suggest we exercise extreme caution as far as who gets added to this group. Everybody is making a lot more mistakes than usual, especially because of the new content lately. Just my two cents. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 00:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So being banned for no reason is ok? No need to say anything about that... Do you think this is proper behaviour for an administrator? ~ Dwarfmp 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's clearly not okay, but I think we need to hear Krusty's explanation first.

As for "idiocy", that was just rude. We know you disagree with the suggestion Krusty, but so far, you're the only one who has expressed outright opposition to the idea. Accept that it has consensus and move on to something else. – Robin Hood↝talk 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, then, I doubt the utility of creating such a group. I don't know if "idiocy" is the right term, I just don't think that creating the group will create significant returns in terms of efficiency, and if we really trust someone to make edits with little or no oversight, he or she should just be made a patroller. If they choose not to patrol the work of others, that would be the prerogative of the individual; everyone contributes differently. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

PLRDLF and myself currently don't want to be patrollers. elliot (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you two should be conscripted, then ;) Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 01:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 3

The argument that trusted editors should just be made into Patrollers holds some merit, and that's the reason a group like this hasn't been created before whenever the idea was floated. But as Elliot says, some people don't want to be Patrollers (PLRDLF has turned it down repeatedly in the past) while other people simply don't qualify to be Patrollers. The early days of Alphabetface would be one example, where I trusted her edits completely, but she didn't yet have enough content edits to qualify for full Patroller. There are a number of other people in a similar position. – Robin Hood↝talk 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with having this group. Patrollers are elected to help patrol the last time I bothered to check. That is what hinders the other editors such as PLRDLF and elliot from having autopatrol. They simply don't want to actually patrol. This group would enable us to give autopatrolling to our trusted editors who want it without expecting them to patrol. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 02:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just running for Patroller won't work - it hasn't in the past. Remember Helenaannevalentine's nomination? Most people agreed that she has good edits, but that she isn't quite up for being a Patroller. This is what we'll inevitably run into; plus, as has already been mentioned, many people just don't want to be Patrollers. ?• JA^Talk 03:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like I said, I doubt that making a "Trusted User" group will be very useful, but if it's useful at all, more power to you. However, while it's not an issue with vets like elliot and PLRDLF, I'm concerned that the group could become used as a way to circumvent the patrolling system for newcomers who are considered promising, which is not a good idea. I suggest that this proposed group have disqualifying requirements like those for patroller nominations, including at least an edit requirement, a time requirement, and a clean record, which would help protect us from capricious users, particularly deceptive trolls, and the incautious use of administrative discretion. Forgive me if that's already been suggested; I guess I missed it. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think those suggestions were sort of implied in some comments, but they definitely weren't spelled out. You're right that we want to take steps to make sure it's not some kind of free-for-all or anything close to it. I would tend to think the requirements should be fairly similar to those for full Patroller, but perhaps smaller edit counts or allowing edit counts in talk space to count towards the total. We could probably lighten the activity requirement a little as well or make it an either/or thing, like "At least 200 edits anywhere on the wiki and recently active or 500 edits anywhere on the wiki and periodically active within the last year." (That's shortened slightly, but you get the idea.) The latter would be good for users like PLRDLF and Aliana, who are often sporadic in their edits and have few (if any) edits during off periods. But maybe that's overcomplicating it. We could do something simpler, like nominated/approved by at least x (2? 3?) Patrollers/Admins. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with RH. As been as this group will be limited in members, it should only need to be approved by a few and the qualification that you mentioned seem fair. It is just taking out that important and defining phrase that makes people need to patrol. --Manic 06:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that a general consensus has been reached. What happens now? Do we need an official vote?—SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 01:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) It seems a general consensus has been reached about creating the group (in favor), but not about the requirements or method of choosing who may be added to the group. That should be determined before anything takes place, I believe. ABCface^◥ 02:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that 200 edits and one month or 500 edits and one year (count all edits) are reasonable requirements. I also think that having a vote of two or three Patrollers/Admins is sufficient. • JA ^Talk 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

By "all edits", do you mean ALL edits, or content edits? I think that it should be restricted to content edits (i.e. Gamespaces, File, Lore, etc), similar to the Patrollers page. It is the content edits that matter if we are giving out auto-patrol rights. I wouldn't vote on giving the rights to someone if have of them were user edits. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 04:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of including talk page edits (because a lot of the users I'd put in this group edit talk pages extensively) but you're right, User edits probably shouldn't count. • JA ^Talk 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I would put it at 1,000 content edits and 1 year of editing. The point of the group is to autopatrol people who make a lot of edits and are completely trusted. You cannot satisfy such a standard in 250 or even 500 edits. elliot (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why 1,000 edits and a year? This group is simply for autopatrol privileges as I understand it. We give patrollers autopatrol and then some if they have at least 250 edits and a month. I would say that at the very highest, we set the requirements to the same as the Patrollers. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 04:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue with that is that we'd have more strict requirements for Trusted Users than Patrollers, which really restricts the Trusted Users group a bit too tightly for my tastes. I think 500 edits is better. I'm also open to having a straight-up nomination process, which seems to be what you're leaning towards, although odds are only Patrollers would nominate (which is OK). Also, one year of editing seems a bit much. If we had that standard for Patrollers, then people like Minor Edits, Kiz, Eric Snowmane, Velyanthe, Alphabetface, and some guy named Jak Atackka :P wouldn't be Patrollers, and those who were would be continuously swamped by our combined 13,978 edits, or about 50 edits per day (!)

If we're going to go that direction, then I think 500 edits is sufficient, and a flexible time requirement of two months, so that way if we have a very active user that doesn't want to patrol we don't have to wait ten months to autopatrol their edits. A truncated nomination process over the course of a week would take place, with a basic "Yea" or "Nay" being sufficient. Self-nomination is not accepted, but asking one of the Patrollers to nominate you is perfectly fine. • JA ^Talk 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) My 500 edits suggestion was only for those who are periodically active, like PLRDLF and Aliana. Making it more edits than Patrollers in that case is simply due to the amount of time between edits - we need to know they still remember what they're doing when they've been away for a while! :) For those who are currently active, it seems to me the requirements should be close to those of Patroller, but a little less. Otherwise, the group itself becomes a non-entity...we'd just make people Patrollers and if they didn't want to patrol, there's nothing saying they have to. Also, I agree that talk page edits should count towards membership in the new group. As has been said above, if we make it content-only, we're excluding users, whom we may already know are good editors, just because they hang out a lot on talk pages (as is the case for a few highly active users like SkoomaManiac, JR, and Br3admax). Talk page edits for users like them are in the 40-50% range. I think by the time a user becomes trusted, even if they're not active on content pages often, we can at least trust that they'll go to someone or undo if they goof and need help fixing it. If we didn't trust them to do so, then presumably they wouldn't be nominated in the first place, even if they met the prerequisites. – Robin Hood↝talk 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess the next step then is creating a nominations page and the group. --Manic 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's probably a good step. A more concrete nominations page will also help us refine the discussion about what, exactly, they should be. Unfortunately, while I have a lot of ideas about what that should look like, I'm off to bed now, and I may not be on much (if at all) till later tomorrow night, so someone else feel free to play with it. – Robin Hood↝talk 08:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the user group to be called? --Manic 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox here to mess with this stuff before we actually create the group and nominations page. It's an open sandbox; please contribute. Obviously "Trusted Users" is a tentative title, but I thought I'd take some initiative. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 15:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) If this is the case then, I must voice my opposition to this group. If you count people with 200 or more edits, you have 239 eligible users. I think that if we do implement this, we should put a limit on the number of users in the group. I still don't think we should create this anymore, but if we do, then do it right (and hope this group isn't regretted later). elliot (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If we vote on them, that would keep it down. After all, there's plenty of people with the 250+ edits required to be a Patroller, but not all have edits that are good enough. --Velyanthe^{►Talk►Email} 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Elliot, while I see where you're coming from, really the key is that only patrollers may vote. This way, the people who are most closely entangled with who provides what kind of edits get to reject the ones that are sub-par. I don't see how this could go wrong otherwise. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 16:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps; there is a temptation to add more users to make it easier on them. But regarding the name, the best name for it should simply be autopatrolled. Using "Trusted User" implies that other users aren't trusted; we should avoid such implications. elliot (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing about the name later, but since I'm typing one-handed, I can't put write up all my input at the moment. 'Autopatrolled' is definitely a better name for the group. I'll write up some more of my opinions on this in general later, when I don't have a baby on my lap. ABCface^◥ 16:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also with Elliot and Alphabetface on the name. – Robin Hood↝talk 16:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can equalize it with Patrollers, same requirements in terms of edit counts, activity, etc, since it is simply for auto patrolling. Then, we make that an alternative, like what Aryon said to the Player during the Telvanni questline, "I can grant you the rank of Master now. That will give you an equal place on the Telvanni Council. But if you aspire to a higher claim, I can also grant you the title of Magister." Similar to that. You can simply request for a straight autopatrol, or you can request the extra powers and responsibilities. It wouldn't be a definite split as "go for more responsibilities or stay merely a Trustee", of course. Maybe add in a time requirement. If you want to go from a Trustee to Patroller, you have to stay as a Trustee for a month or so, so that your edits can be verified again. But, it definitely shouldn't be a higher requirement that patrollers, because we give them autopatrol, skipcatpcha, the tools, etc. which is more of a responsibility.

And, Elliot: We wouldn't give every single person who has the edit requirements met the role. It would be like with Patrollers where you have to read through their contributions and make sure they are good edits. It definitely wouldn't be, "Well, Fakeusername, you meet the requirements so here are your autopatrol privileges." For this idea to work as it is meant to be, we have to be quite selective, IMO, but at the same time, we can't give a group with less rights more scrutiny than a group with more rights. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) The name change idea seems legit, and actually a better idea. I'll make the move. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 4

Okay, I've got a lot of my own input on this, but it may not be very organized. Sorry about that. I know a lot of this has already been been mentioned, but I'm just summing up what I've gathered from the entire discussion, and adding my opinions.

The point of this group is to help lessen the workload for Recent Changes Patrollers. Due to the backlog of unpatrolled edits, it would be a convenience for RCPs not to have this user group's contributions in the list of unpatrolled edits. Once this group is made, RCPs can focus on all other unpatrolled edits (as normal), which would be a better use of their time than manually patrolling many edits by the users whose contributions don't need much oversight.
This group is not about the users in the group. Yes, technically they will be given a new set of User Rights, however, the point of the group is not meant to have any effect on their contributions. It is not about a hierarchy, it is not about wanting to be added the group, and it's not about slacking off because they know their edits aren't being cross-checked (if RCPs trust the contributions of these users, it should be a given that we trust that adding them to the group is not an invitation to lower standards).
The requirements to be included in this group should not be overcomplicated, in my opinion. I don't believe it's important to specify a specific number of contributions or time spent on the wiki. While these factors will definitely affect them being added to the group, this should be an indirect way of affecting it. Given the point of this group, I believe the simplest and most sensible way to add users to this group is for RCPs to nominate and vote, using their judgement as the ones who regularly patrol the Recent Changes page. For the purpose of this group, they are the ones who should judge whether a user's contributions need much oversight in terms of patrolling their edits, because they are the ones doing the patrolling.

Only RCPs would be allowed to nominate users for the group, and only RCPs would be allowed to vote. A certain number of RCPs should vote in support for a user to be added (let's say, 5? I'm not picky on that number, just throwing it out there.). However, I also think it's a good idea to add a stipulation that users can not be added to the group if there are 3 or more votes in opposition (or something to that effect, 3 being another number I'm not too picky on). That way, even if enough RCPs don't feel they need to patrol certain users, the user will not be added if enough RCPs disagree. (The votes in opposition to certain users would hold more value than those in favor, basically.)

Some other details and opinions I have... (this section is a lot less organized, jumping from topic to topic, be warned)
- Administrators are obviously included when I mention Recent Changes Patrollers above. UserPatrollers are not (simply because Userspace is very well patrolled, and the backlog of unpatrolled edits to Recent Changes does not affect them in terms of patrolling).
- To address the concern that users in this group won't have their edits cross-checked at all... Many RCPs have pages on their watchlists which they check regularly regardless of who made edits to the page or whether or not the edits have been patrolled. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a ridiculous number of pages on my watchlist, either.) Also, this is a wiki which all users are allowed to edit, so anything which is absolutely, horribly wrong will be fixed in time. And, again, we wouldn't add users to the group unless we trust them not to make questionable edits on a regular basis. (Besides, we all make mistakes from time to time— again, this being a wiki, those mistakes will be fixed.)
- Any user who is added to this group would be removed from the group if/when RCPs agree it's for the best. This would only happen if they begin to make questionable contributions, or otherwise change their editing habits on the site. (Of course, if/when they become RCPs themselves, they would no longer need to be in this group, so they would be removed in that case as well.)
- The nomination/voting for each user should remain on the page for one week, so that ~~those who aren't as addicted to UESP~~ all RCPs have a chance to comment or vote before the nomination is decided/archived.
- Many of the users who may be added to this group are users who are on the path toward becoming RCPs in the future anyway, but don't qualify at the moment— they don't have enough edits in the right areas, they haven't been around long enough, or whatever other reason. I'm hesitant to add some of these users to the group because I believe any user which will be nominated for RCP in the near future should have their edits scrutinized more closely prior to nomination, but this would be a hard thing to regulate, so it's probably not even worth mentioning... but I mentioned it anyway. :P
- Of course there are those who don't wish to be RCPs, yet their contributions already need hardly any oversight, and these people are perfect examples of who should be added to the group. Again, this has already said, but... I don't know, I'm probably just rambling now. :)

So, I don't know how many people will actually read all of that, sorry for the overly long post, but I tried to cover most of the points mentioned in the discussion, and... yeah, I'm done for now. :) ABCface^◥ 04:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, and am glad to see you got the baby down. Please check out the Sandbox we've been contributing on today, and I'm going to go ahead and scrap the userbox, considering your point that it shouldn't be an aspiration or "rank". Thinking that a badge of honor is a little too... Flashy... Anyhow, seriously, check it out. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looked over your test page, and it all appears to be in order. However, I don't really like the description, specifically the phrase "extreme trustworthiness". I would personally use this as a description for the group:

"Autopatrolled Users are a group of users whose edits are automatically patrolled. Editors in this group are editors whose high-quality edits have been noticed by the community, especially the Administrators and Patrollers. They are selected by our current Administrators and Patrollers, and they have not yet qualified or do not wish to be Patrollers."

I don't know, something to that effect. Basically, I don't like using the term "Trusted User" because it bears a heavy weight as a title, yet the group itself is not nearly that significant. • JA ^Talk 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding Jak's suggestion to the sandbox, and made a couple other changes as well. I removed the 'elite' note because of the whole 'not a hierarchy' thing, and the note about asking questions because the mentors page is a more appropriate place for those who wish to be available for questions from other users (encouraging others to ask them questions doesn't seem appropriate, since some users may not want to be available for questions-- just like not wanting to be a patroller). As for the qualifications, I'm not opposed to the specific number of edits and time on the wiki being in there (though I don't think it's necessary, personally), but I do think the number of votes in support should be higher than two. ABCface^◥ 06:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I went ahead and removed the disqualifications, since they seem frivolous. These "trigger" requirements often remove qualified users (such as myself). I'm sure that the voting admins and patrollers would take any warnings and blocks into consideration when determining a user's eligibility. Plus, 6 months is a long time for an "observation" period. elliot (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Trusted Users" and "elite" crap was left over from it being "Trusted Users" as opposed to "Autopatrolled Users". It just never got taken out.

Makes sense, Elliot.

ABC, I think (I can't say for sure; I wasn't the one who put it up) that two was the MINIMUM number that could approve for a promotion. If I'm not mistaken there is a certain amount of time that the user has to be voted on. If not, I'll add it now at a week. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 12:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of having that edit count is to adequately gauge the ability of the user... I do like the requirement, as with less than 200 or so I feel like I can't tell whether or not the quality of the edits will persist or if the person has made enough recent quality edits, especially if past edits have been of a lower quality. I agree with the current 200/500 edit requirement in the sandbox. I also agree with the one-week voting period, and I would like to keep a minimum amount of time on the wiki.

Skooma, the sandbox does say minimum of two, yep. --Velyanthe^{►Talk►Email} 15:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All right, are there any further suggestions or major complaints? I think it's ready if there's nothing else... —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the comment about not yet qualifying for patroller status it should be clarified whether being part of this group is a prerequisite to becoming a patroller, I am undecided on this issue and therefore cannot think of the appropriate wording. The Silencer has spoken 18:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

-Yeah, I understand the point of the edit count, but if a Patroller feels strongly enough that a user should be added to the group to make a nomination (or vote in support), the user has most likely met the criteria already anyway. Maybe instead of using the term "qualifications" or "requirements" we should use "guidelines" so it's not quite as strict. As mentioned somewhere above in this long discussion, some users who have been proposed/mentioned in this discussion have many edits on non-Userspace Talk pages which don't normally count as "content-related" edits. So making it a 'guideline' rather than a 'requirement' would allow for users such as these to be eligible.

-Also, I think the minimum vote in favor should be three rather than two, but if I'm the only one who doesn't think two is enough of a minimum, I'll leave that be.

-And, last, I don't believe this group should be a prerequisite for patrollership. ABCface^◥ 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I'm in agreement with three votes in favor, and that would make it equal to the current opposition vote, since it says "if more than two oppose..." (unless that's been changed). So three minimum for agreement, three votes for opposition. I think we'll have plenty of voters, though. I think that a Suggested Qualifications section should work fine, with an Immediate Disqualifications that's looser than the one Patrollers have. There should be a note in there about warnings/bans--I would say two weeks for a warning and a month for a ban. I would feel uncomfortable with some people on the basis of that if they applied a week after getting unbanned or right after a warning, and that extra time would be long enough for them to prove themselves again. Recent resignation of autopatrol rights (for whatever reason) should be the same as Patrollers, though I don't see that happening any time soon so I don't know whether or not it's even worth mentioning. --Velyanthe^{►Talk►Email} 22:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed "Guidelines" to "Suggested Guidelines" and "minimum of two supports for consensus" to "three". And in the interest of this group being "not an honor or hierarchical" it should not be a prerequisite for patroller, ESPECIALLY since users can't nominate themselves. Other than that I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with everyone's comments. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 22:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The block/warn disqualification if frivolous at best; however, in light of recent adjustments, I will support this new group. elliot (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The group now exists. Which still leaves the question of who should be the first guinea pigs. However, all admins should be able to add/remove group members, so getting that done won't get held up by the Bureaucrat-only bottleneck. --Nephele^Talk 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Robin Hood, can you get us an up-to-date list of the top 20 contributors over the past month? That would be helpful in figuring out our guinea pigs. I think Elliot is a prime candidate. • JA ^Talk 03:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The following list is the top 20 contributors, excluding file uploads and, for Userspace Patrollers, any edits that were already autopatrolled anyway. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

List

Acaveman
Coronus
DayDreamer
DextroWombat
Elliot (Userspace Patroller)
Evil4Zerggin
GrogGrogGrog
Helenaannevalentine (Userspace Patroller)
JR
J'ZhirrthePriest
Kertaw48
Kimi the Elf (Userspace Patroller)
Manic (Userspace Patroller)
MrL
Nikofeelan
PLRDLF
SkoomaManiac (Userspace Patroller)
The Silencer (Userspace Patroller)
ThuumofReason
Zappatized

Thank you for the list Robin Hood. I went ahead and nominated Elliot, PLRDLF, Manic, and Aliana to start off. Don't forget to vote! • JA ^Talk 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break 5

(←) Once members of the group are we aloud to vote for future members? --Manic 18:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, since we aren't the ones patrolling. elliot (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The point of the group is to remove the task of manually patrolling the group members' edits, for the sake of Patrollers. Only Patrollers and Administrators are allowed to vote for that reason. ABCface^◥ 18:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

However, all users are allowed to comment on any nominations. ABCface^◥ 18:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, just checking so not to make an ass of myself. --Manic 18:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Massive numbers of accounts being created

I think someone is running some sort of bot to create a very large number of accounts. Anyone who hasn't noticed this on the Recent Changes can look here and see. You can tell it's a bot because it seems to be selecting a random first and last name and then sometimes adding a number at the end. I don't know how to check what IP is creating them (I don't think I have the permission) but if it's the same IP I think they ought to be blocked for spamming account creation. ?• JA^Talk 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If I may put forward a suggestion to counter this kind of spam, if it is proven to be a bot, I believe the site should be set so that account verification through an email is required, and you can have 2 accounts per email. I say two, because we have users with legitimate alternate accounts (NepheleBot, HotNBothered, RoBoT). This is the only site that I have contributed to that hasn't required a valid email address. This is something I assume Nephele can do, and its a one-time validation per user. That way, if someone where to spam the site usernames, they would have to go through the inconvenience of creating new email accounts as well, and I doubt the average account spammer would care to go through all that trouble. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Without installing an extension, we can't place any email validation limits on account creation. Also, I don't think that's a good idea unless we can fix our problems with AOL and some other ISPs that block all email sent from UESP -- unless we're absolutely sure we can send email to all valid email addresses, any email validation requirement will prevent legitimate users from being able to create accounts.

As for IP addresses, when I looked last week most of the accounts being created were using different IP addresses -- spambots typically have control of significant numbers of IP addresses, because they know that individual IP addresses are trivial to block. I blocked one IP address range that had been used to create multiple spambot accounts, but even figuring out patterns of IP addresses is pretty time-consuming, because it means running checkuser on a lot of different user names. Plus any time an entire range of IPs is blocked there is an increased risk of blocking legitimate users. --Nephele^Talk 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(I completely missed Nephele's previous comment before replying.) I don't think much can be done regarding this, and even if we could do something, I don't think we should. They don't pop into editing or vandalizing, so we would be limiting account creation based on perceived patterns rather than facts. I had Nephele implement the $wgAccountCreationThrottle setting, which limited account creation based on IPs. I think that is enough, for now. elliot (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand your logic, and it does make sense, but I believe something should be done, at least for a short term that would limit account creation, assuming this is all one guy. It is ridiculous to do nothing because

A.) We have the RC flooded with 5+ new accounts every few minutes, and

B.) There could be a legitimate user who wants to use their name, and it seems wasteful to have them all sitting idle because we have a hypothetical spammer who we have to accept as running wild with account creations.

I am backing out of this conversation to sleep, its 2AM, and I have had a long day. I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the issue real fast. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 06:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In the last few minutes there have been more accounts made that follow the pattern such as KonradConradMetcalf and LizzieBusch4. Maybe when creating an account you should have to answer some basic question or something. RIM 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This question idea has been suggested before, but it could turn real users away if they don't know the answer or can't be bothered to figure it out. --kiz ^talk_email 19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be general knowledge or Elder Scrolls question, I just mean something that a bot could not answer. Just a suggestion. Also new accounts like this are being made now.

Recently when I edited a page, I had to enter a captcha(sp?). I hadn't seen this before. It might have be because I was linking to wikipedia.

Why not require this captcha when creating an account. If this continues the account name that I might want will be taken...

Is there some cleanup of just created and unused accounts for a certain time? -- MartinS 94.255.233.233 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) A lot of the names they use are nonsensical anyway, reduce the chances of users wanting them. A captcha is another idea, this has been shot down to. I'm not saying just TES-related, not everyone will have been schooled in the same way. Theres no way of creating a question everyone in the world (which is our audience really) will know the answer to, its just so daft. --kiz ^talk_email 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

~~Wait, you mean we don't use captcha for account creations? –Eshe^talk 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)~~

Never mind, I see we do. Well...if that isn't stopping it, then it can't be a bot, right?

Also, a quick run through checkuser reveals the latest batch are all coming from the same IP range. Not sure if that helps or not, but there it is. –Eshe^talk 19:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looking down the recent changes has shown various completely random accounts. One way to monitor this would be to check if any of these accounts contribute in anyway. What are the odds of 50 accounts (lets say) being created with none contributing in anyway. --Manic 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are seriously too many accounts being created now. This IP needs to be blocked asap. --Manic 20:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous, I know. We need to risk an IP range block to kill the account creation nonsense, or go with my suggestion of finding a way to require email verification or an extra captcha or question like the others suggested. It may be ridiculous, but why not add (just for a short term) two or three additional captcha/question entries. That way, you would have to seriously want to contribute or seriously want to flood the page with new accounts. Chances are, the person(s) involved will grow impatient with multiple captchas, and they will abandon the the creation. Then, for good measure, we keep it active for upwards of a week-ish to make sure. And, during the creation, if it is possible, we should have a message for the legitimate users saying that the inconvenient list of captchas is to counter an account spammer, which will be removed after X amount of time.

EDIT: This is crazy. I pulled up the account creation log, and at least 100 accounts have been made following the First name-surname-optional number pattern. Without a block, I am unsure this will stop. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 20:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem is, that it might take a while to set up. We need something for the short term. --Manic 20:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) A short term range block while a way to inhibit this kind of behavior is thought of? ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not a single admin or blocker is currently online. By time one comes on there could be another 50 accounts. --Manic 20:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you all please calm down? They're not doing anything, so it isn't that big of a problem. Blocking them is pointless until someone determines the range (which I can't as I lack Check User), and if any make any edits that break site rules, they can be dealt with. The request for the range block is clear, there is no point in worrying about it further. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the above comments, there is a Captcha on account creation, but either someone's developed a bot that's got some pretty good OCR, or they've designed the bot to display the Captcha for human resolution, then immediately move on to the next one. If either of those are the case, additional questions or Captchas probably won't bother them for long. I don't think the latter would be very hard at all. Also, we don't need to feel special...other wikis are being hit by this same bot as well. As AKB mentioned, the only people who can effectively range block will be the longer-serving Administrators who have CheckUser (list). Blockers and the newer Admins can both block ranges, I believe, but wouldn't know what range to block. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, captchas can only do so much. I read about this bot that actually crowd-sources captchas. Take the captcha image and publish it on another site (promising free porn or something like that), and real people give it the answer, which it then turns around and uses to solve the captcha on the target site. Not sure if that's what's hitting us right now, but it does exist, and is one way that bots can get past such measures. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 12:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done some more poking around via checkuser and I can pretty confidently confirm that all these accounts are being created from the same IP range. I don't have a problem implementing a range block if that's what everyone agrees should be done. Thing is, I've never done it before and I'm honestly not sure how--from what I remember, Nephele usually does this kind of thing... –Eshe^talk 17:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooh... That's clever. I'll make a "train solve captchas" site... -- MartinS 94.255.233.233 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, I'd set up a bot just to give a ton of wrong answers on one of those sites. ?• JA^Talk 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) You can take a look at the [mediawiki article] on them. Though, if you feel uncomfortable with it, I'm sure we can wait until Nephele or someone is willing to do it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that an IP range block is necessary, given the circumstances. If any of those blocked IPs tries to create an account, what do they see? It should have something along the lines of, "If you believe that you were mistakenly blocked, then email (← hyperlink) us." That way people who are caught in that IP range aren't out of luck. ?• JA^Talk 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, AKB. Unfortunately, it's a bit over my head, and I think it's especially important that I not screw it up. Thankfully, it's not an urgent situation, so we can wait until someone with a bit more expertise in this kind situation gets around to it. –Eshe^talk 19:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the last 9 spammers who were blocked and found 10 different IP ranges (IPs>spammers because a couple spammers had used two IPs). And none of them were using the same IP range that Eshe had identified -- plus that was a fairly broad IP range (a class B network, i.e., 65536 different IPs) so I'd prefer to be sure that such a large block is needed. Blocked IPs aren't given an email address or any other way to contact the site -- and in the case of IP ranges, I'm not entirely sure whether they're even able to edit a user talk page to appeal the block.

The bottom line is that I'm no longer seeing any IP ranges that need to be blocked / can usefully blocked.

We may need to upgrade our captcha at some point, but I haven't looked into what all would be necessary to install one of the newer captchas (including what mediawiki version they require). --Nephele^Talk 03:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was checking the accounts that were following a real first name / real last name pattern, not spam accounts. Actually, I'm not sure if any of the ones I checked had actually made any edits at all. Everything I looked at was coming from 173.208.something.something. eshe^talk 20:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) I've added a titleblacklist block on names with the format Name19##. It's a name format that has been used to create 8 spam accounts in the last few days -- only one recent account with that format has not been using for spamming, and I'm willing to bet that account is also a spambot account. It means that any users who want to create a unique name by adding the year to the end of their name (e.g., Nephele1968) won't be able to do so. But they can still add a two-digit year (e.g., Nephele68), which should be more than enough to create a unique name on UESP. --Nephele^Talk 01:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Very nice site" vandals

May we start blocking these IPs at the first offense? I'm also unclear why some IPs which have received a warning and continued to vandalize, such as this guy, have not been blocked yet. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of those warnings are mine because I can't block. They should be blocked because they delete other content and add nonsense. The Silencer has spoken 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I only asked because there are some, like this one, who have already vandalized more than once and haven't even been warned yet. It seems like only a matter of time before each IP is used to vandalize again. Most of the recent vandals to Lore:Gods M haven't received warnings yet, but I think it would be absurd at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we might as well just skip to the blocking. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, this is probably somewhat my fault. I was under the impression we were dealing with a bot here, so I didn't warn them. Instead I was planning to ask if they could get blocked, but then subsequently forgot. I didn't block them myself because then an admin would have to extent the block, and it didn't seem that urgent. Thanks for following up though, Minor Edits. Wolok gro-Barok 17:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think they are bots. Even if they are not, they have "bot-like" qualities and probably should just be blocked. elliot (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Since blocking them all myself would be pointless, I'll just list a few that I haven't already mentioned for the convenience of any admin who may wish to take action:

93.82.197.98
200.241.156.143
213.160.143.150
212.87.24.211
218.127.28.112

Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I've got all of them now. Thanks for making the list, Minor Edits! eshe^talk 18:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Krusty suggested I hit them for 1 month, so that's what I did. eshe^talk 19:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Beginning of the Month/Archive Semi-protection

This needs semi protection. More likely to come. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And here. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 16:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here. —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 17:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one. ABCface^◥ 21:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! eshe^talk 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We need more people to Patrol old edits!

Just look at the backlog of unpatrolled edits we have. This is a long list (Robin Hood last calculated it to be about 1000 edits long) but we need to patrol them!

Just so people don't think this is such a daunting task, I will remind them of these simple tips to cut down the list:

Edits in which people edit their own post can be patrolled.
A lot of the edits are people just adding {{Unsigned}}s.
If you are unsure about a content edit (a non-talk page edit), then check the page history (or even just hit Newer Edit) and see if it was undone. If it was undone (for good reason), then patrol it.
If you are unsure and it wasn't undone, then either add a {{vn}} tag or leave it unpatrolled and hope someone else can come along and answer it.

I do have one question. Can we just patrol any edits to talk pages that are now in an archive? I know it's standard procedure to answer a question before patrolling it, but it's also standard procedure not to edit archives. Skyrim talk:Followers is a good example. • JA ^Talk 07:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would say you should patrol archived questions. In theory, an unanswered question probably shouldn't be archived if it's still on the Recent Changes list, but in practice, especially on a high-volume page, if a question remains unanswered even for a couple of weeks, chances are, it never will be, so some people choose to archive it if it's not "Good question" worthy.

As for the backlog, 1000 (995 right now, to be exact) is actually a lot less than it was just a month ago. For the most part, I can handle patrolling the 40ish edits per day that make it through to the back end of Recent Changes, but help is certainly appreciated. A second Patroller who mostly patrols the back end of RC would be ideal. But if the regular Patrollers can take two minutes to glance over the the ones at the very bottom of the list, that would be a big step in ensuring that we have as much factual, good quality information on pages as we can.

Oh and on a side note, since Jak mentioned it, I have a process that automatically downloads the RC and Patrol Logs into a database a few times a day. It's literally point-and-double-click for me to get up-to-date stats on our Recent Changes list. Is this incredibly geeky? You're damned right it is! :) But hey, before I went on disability, it used to be my job, so I like to keep at least my basic skills up. Point is, generating stats based on RC or the Patrol Log is stupendously easy for me, so don't hesitate to ask if there's some statistic you want to know (how many people in the last few months would qualify for Autopatrolled status comes to mind, for instance <g>). – Robin Hood↝talk 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have 4 free hours and absolutely nothing to do - let's have a patrolling party!! :D Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a small amount of free time this week (no school), so I suppose I could go ahead and help out.--Kalis Agea^{Yes? Contrib E-mail} 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean Image vs Cleanup

I'm aware of the fact lately everyone's using clean image. I've always used cleanup for images instead. So my silly question, is it wrong to use cleanup for images instead of clean image? I'll use clean image in the future, but I saw a person using cleanup, and I don't know whether I HAVE to correct that or not ~ Dwarfmp 05:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Clean Image has the benefit of automatically categorizing the image according to what needs to be done to it, which is helpful for people who may want to only take new pictures, only do cropping, etc. So I'd say yes, you probably should correct it. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Very nice site nonsense bot

89.73.170.132 —SkoomaManiac ^{Talk ♫ Contribs} 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. – Robin Hood↝talk 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Easter Eggs page protection?

I just noticed that several unapproved edits were recently made to the Skyrim Easter Eggs page...by IP users. Uh...isn't the page supposed to be semi-protected? How can an unregistered user edit it? ThuumofReason 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's edit protection expired a week ago. I'm not entirely sure it should be re-protected either, as it hasn't seen any major spike of editing since the protection expired. If it becomes a target of a large number of incorrect edits, I'll re-protect it. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 17:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Like you said, activity on the talk page has slowed to a trickle, so maybe we're finally done with that nightmare, eh? ThuumofReason 17:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 24

Up: Administrator Noticeboard

Next: Archive 26

UESPWiki β